Joel Pett for December 13, 2009

December 10, 2009

December 15, 2009

36Comments

Featured Comment

Improving the air and earth and a better way of utilizing energy, really is a healthy way to go. Lets get some creatives to come up with some new green jobs that everybody can do. Not only a few managers that have 30 years experience making fossil fuel.

Start getting rid of landfills, and making packages dissolvable. Less trash less massive air pollutants. Instead of driving miles to get to work, lets have work close enough to each of us to bike to work, or work at home. Lets Get These At Home Jobs Started! WOOO. Im sure many of you are with me on that. We can produce and ship items from home, at home business on treadmills to keep fit. 3-4 day work weeks. 1 day emphasised on health fitness day a week. Better food, gardeners galore. Fruits and vegtables. Jobs Jobs Jobs, healthy jobs, extra time with family, homeschool. All this is good. Yah!

^ av8tor demands: ”Meanwhile, the EPA is displaying criminal negligence with respect to one of its duly authorized responsibilities. It should be investigating the matter of fraudulent claims, and suppressed data, at the University of East Anglia in England

How an earth does an American agency “investigate” a British academic instituition?
Talk about arrogance…sheesh…

Motivemagus provided us with this Associated Press investigation into the 1073 emails stolen from the University of East Anglia:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20091212/D9CI226O0.html

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data - but the messages don’t support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

Nice sentiment, Charlie, but too many fundie-christians like Av8tor, Puppy, Anandy and of course Scott feel that Genesis has given them stewardship of the planet, which they interpret to mean that they can destroy it and still go to their heaven, even if it means people like Av8tor have to lie through their teeth to ignore the CO2 produced by other than “breathing human being(s)” sources in order to advance their pro-pollution-loving agenda.

The world should be cleaned, no question. Pollution? Makes the air harder to breathe. Unfortunately, the campaign for this change has to be headed by this man-made climate change debate. I used to have respect for the scientists there, but now the scientists have gone and wrecked my respect.

Why did they have to hide their methods? Whatever happened to the scientific method that I learned about in school? This screams money (why am I surprised?).

Don’t spare me the “I am a pollution lover” argument. That argument is silly. I don’t want my country to end up like China, where they wear masks to breathe in their major cities. Where’s the nuclear power, nuclear fusion? That stuff is ridiculously clean compared to fossil fuels.

Anthony, you might like this: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/metadata/noaa-icecore-2475.html

Slowpoke, read the link OmQ R provided, realize the scientists involved are desperate to avoid the sequelae of the evidence they’ve found, despite the fundie christians and pro-pollution people, and get back to us.

Would the interpretation of the last line ” etc.etc.” be , American taxpayers pay whatever the cost ?

I say , thank God for Global warming without it , this winter would be a record setter . The rising sea level and all is Miami Fl. still dry ? Sacramento Ca. is 11 foot sea level so I’ll hold off my move to Reno until San Jose is under water .

Yes Anthony, for example, I could make some studies on gravity, fake them, but gravity would still exist. However, the gravity of this situation is a little bit different, I should think. Should I really overlook this? I know the scientists want me to, because they’re human.

Just sayin, with this flying around, I don’t want people to be jumping the gun on man made climate change. I can understand the urgency of the environment, but play to the points you know I care about: pollution, deforestation, habitat destruction, not a dubious temperature increase.

Slowpoke, the only people who think we’re “jumping the gun” are ones who’ve only just become aware of the problem.

The concept of global warming didn’t just pop up a month ago.

But like I’ve said, you have nothing to worry about. The pollution-lovers will win, because their way is cheaper and easier, and doesn’t affect them…just our descendants, and they don’t care about them.

Your first statement, like so many of yours, has nothing to do with the debate, Puppy since there are no “LittleJoeStalins” here. But I would remind you of the old adage “Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”. In other words, just because we could be free to pollute our environment doesn’t mean we should be allowed to destroy it for others who share it.

And I don’t have a clue to the answer of your question, but would remind you that with any manufacturing process, pollutants can be dumped into the air, water or ground, or they can be contained. The former is the cheaper and easier route that I can only assume people like you and Harley would prefer, as the latter is more expensive and would usually require government regulation.

It is a real issue – there are stories of giant waste piles, with mercury and other dangerous chemicals, where kids pick through to find useful stuff. The solutions are twofold: first, get it out of the computer in the first place if you can (many are; Apple particularly); second, recycle appropriately.

Yeah. I have to say the comment that drives me wildest is “we breathe out carbon dioxide every day - it’s not a pollutant.” Yes, and arsenic is all natural - it’s an element! Cripes, too much of anything is bad for you, including oxygen, water, and of course food.
And the fact that your body gets rid of CO2 might tell people something, right? It’s referred to as a “waste product of expiration.” And if we cut down the various plants that absorb it, we’re ironically making an atmosphere much friendlier to plants than animals.

Mr. Pett: OK maybe we would create a better planet - but WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DO IT BASED ON A LIE? Maybe you get rid of some or even all pollutants, but WHY BASE IT ALL ON A LIE? I suggest that is NOT a better planet; I’d rather have some pollutants around.

“Is it in the Constitution?” More silence. When you Libs can stop spending your time rigging the system in order to get your un-popular programs passed…I guess I’ll stop calling you LittleJoeStalins. And I sincerely doubt you’ve “bought” back your debt you owe (as per Lib BELIEFS) with your recycling habits.

So that’s your religion Anthony? That kind of religion is called common sense. Don’t poop in your water well. I’m not for polluting and despoiling the planet, I’m just against LittleJoeStalins taking advantage of hysteria for their own political ends. I don’t think there is anyone in America who is for polluting the planet. Since you are not a serious debater : this conversation is over.